Standing Committee G

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Peter Pike: We are quorate, so we can commence the sitting. However, before we start, the Committee may like to know that a slightly larger Room has been found for us—several hon. Members raised that point this morning. As of next Tuesday, we shall meet in Room 16, which will be more convenient.Clause 1 Regional Spatial Strategy

Clause 1 - Regional Spatial Strategy

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 47, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out 'however expressed'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I welcome you formally to the Chair, Mr. Pike, although I did welcome you in your absence this morning. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and we shall do our best to cause you the least possible trouble.
 When this morning's sitting was adjourned, I was moving amendment No. 47 and arguing that the words ''however expressed'' are unnecessary—they are overly precise and fussy and they leave a great deal to interpretation. What does ''however expressed'' mean? I should have thought that we had perfectly adequate procedures whereby that the Secretary of State can give a direction in writing in the normal way. The words are therefore otiose; they can mean anything to anybody. Without those words, subsection (2) is completely objective and factual. To insert them is to make the subsection subjective. 
 Do the words ''however expressed'' mean that the Secretary of State's policies can be sent by e-mail? The Government are keen on e-government, so I assume that they do mean that. Do the words mean that policies can be sent through a speech that the Secretary of State might make—if he says it in a speech, it is a direction—or do they refer to a more old-fashioned way of delivery, such as carrier pigeon? Had we proposed an amendment putting the words into the Bill, the Minister would strongly have urged his hon. Friends to reject it because it was unnecessary and added confusion. 
 This simple amendment would give the Bill much greater clarity, and make the statement of the Secretary of State completely objective, rather than subjective as it would be under the Bill as drafted. If the Minister accepts the amendment, we can move on quickly.

Matthew Green: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike. I look forward to serving under your chairmanship.
 I support the amendment. Although it deletes only two words, the more I read it, the more interesting it 
 becomes. ''However expressed'' could mean anything, for example, the Minister could change his policies for the region in response to a question from a journalist on regional television. The Minister will say that that is not what the Bill intends, but including those words leaves matters open to interpretation. The current Secretary of State might not choose to misuse the proposal, but there is a danger in leaving in law something that could be misused by a future Minister. I doubt that the Government want that to be part of their legacy. I am sure that the Minister will agree to some tightening of the measure, because as drafted it is somewhat open-ended.

Sydney Chapman: I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Pike.
 When I read subsection (2) I was filled with amazement. At first I thought that it was included to meet the needs of the Deputy Prime Minister, whose speech has a unique style, but the words do not add to the clarity of the clause. The subsection as drafted is open to abuse and gives the Secretary of State carte blanche—I always like to use a French phrase when I disagree with something. I should be interested to know why the words are necessary and I hope that the Minister will enlighten us. I want to know, too, why they are in brackets: is it a typographical error? Was it in the first draft especially for the Deputy Prime Minister and left in unintentionally? Seriously, I should be interested to know if there is a precedent for the phrase, in brackets or not. Has it been used in any other legislation in this Parliament?

Tony McNulty: I, too, welcome you as one of our co-Chairmen, Mr. Pike. We had great fun yesterday on a regulatory reform order, and I am sure that we shall have fun during the passage of the Bill.
 In my six or seven years as a Member of Parliament, I have sat on the Government Benches—never on the Opposition side—in various capacities from Back Bencher, Parliamentary Private Secretary—

Paul Beresford: You will.

Tony McNulty: I may well do so. It depends on longevity. I have found that it is always funny little things like this amendment that delay Committees. We will take our time over it rather than being in a hurry. The key phrase in the clause is not ''however expressed'' but what it follows it:
''in relation to the development and use of land within the region.''
 That goes to the heart of the approach suggested this morning by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who gleefully dismissed the Bill and the planning system as being essentially about land use. That is not the case. The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was and is a glorious piece of legislation of which the country should be proud. I do not say that merely as a planning anorak—I believe that it was a cutting edge piece of legislation for its time. However, through the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which included the spatial development strategy for 
 London, and in this Bill, we want to move on from the 1947 Act to a real spatial strategy approach. 
 If we were to leave out, ''however expressed'', the alternative route for drafting would be to put in an telephone book-long list that would be all-embracing in terms of a spatial strategy, and we would have to do far more work than that involved in revamping PPG11. Far from being otiose, or over stuffy or precise, and given the vagaries of drafting English and the lexicon of language that the lawyers like to call English, that phrase, in parentheses, gives us a shorthand way of saying that the regional spatial strategy must set out the policies of the Secretary of State. 
 In the legalese, ''however expressed'' simply means that, rather than everything being construed as focused on land use in a narrow statutory policy, circular and guidance-fashion, it should be expressed in the broadest way possible à la PPG11. Far from being too precise, those two words will allow the RSS to reflect, as widely as possible, all the spatial dimensions beyond a narrow focus on land use, in which consideration of the granting or refusal of applications for planning permission or listed building or hazardous substances consent would be the primary purpose. That is complementary to the notion behind clause 1 and to making the regional side of our planning RSS-based. It also falls into the context of the debate we had on amendment No. 133. The phrase, however clumsy, will allow the RSS to reflect all those other strategies and dimensions at regional level that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) mentioned earlier.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the amendment, in which we are not arguing about whether the Secretary of State can allocate powers in relation to development and land use within the region. There are clear mechanisms established in relation to how the Secretary of State can allocate those powers.
 Why do we need the words, ''however expressed''? Will the Minister answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on whether there is any legal precedent for the phrase? Moreover, it is not clear in the clause whether, ''however expressed'' refers to the RSS or to the policies of the Secretary of State. Will the Minister clarify those issues?

Tony McNulty: I shall certainly return to the point about precedent, if the winged messengers on my left permit me to do so. With the best will in the world, I do not carry information about such matters in my head. As for the second point, the phrase is very precise and specific. It is saying that the RSS must reflect the policies of the Secretary of State, however those policies are expressed. That is my reading of it.
 It might be helpful if we were to dwell briefly on how a spatial strategy differs from a land-use strategy, and the advantages of the provisions in the Bill over the provisions in the amendment. Spatial planning is about what can be built where and in what 
 circumstances, and about how the consequences of development will be managed and the particular social, economic and environmental objectives met. All those elements are at the core of the existing PPG11, which is the foundation of our regional planning guidance, and they will be contained in the renewed PPG11. Although we are concerned with development and use of land, spatial policies are not only about the granting and refusal of planning permission, and they need not be entirely or directly expressed in traditional land-use terms. Spatial planning is not a new idea. It is contained in the Greater London Authority Act, on which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet spent the best part of three months in Committee with the rest of us, which was a great delight. 
 The PPG11 note on regional planning—I have yet to establish what RPG11 is, but I shall inform the hon. Member for Cotswold when I find out—published in October 2000 set out advice on the adoption of a spatial strategy, which extends beyond land-use issues as one of the ways of strengthening the role and effectiveness of regional planning guidance. Such a strategy deals with traffic management and other policies that go beyond land use. Such policies should be included in the RSS because they can have a direct impact on the level of traffic in an area and thus quality of life, air quality, public health and so forth.

Matthew Green: I have listened carefully to the Minister and I understand where he is coming from. I understand how the wording came about, but does he share my concern that the provision could be interpreted differently, to the effect that the Secretary of State could set out the policies in any particular way—for example, via the medium of a regional TV station? I share the Minister's objectives, but will he give an assurance that the provision could not be misused in future? An answer may be winging its way over from the officials, and I would greatly welcome any such assurance.

Tony McNulty: As I said before, it is the lexicon of draftsmen that explains why the provision is stated as it is rather than in other ways. I suspect—and I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman if I discover otherwise—that the policies must be certified Government policies in whatever form. The ''however expressed'' wording is a means of escaping the narrow confines of statutory planning frameworks, policy guidance and so forth. It is unlikely to involve e-mails, carrier pigeons, illicit notes and the like; it simply means going beyond the narrow confines of land use. I shall write to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet about the precedent of the parentheses and the words therein, because I do not have the full information to hand.
 If we accepted the amendment and dropped the phrase ''(however expressed)'', it could be argued that the scope of policies in the RSS might be limited to the narrower focus on granting or refusing planning permission, listed building consent or hazardous substances consent. Topical subjects—in this city, at least—such as congestion charges included in the draft 
 revisions of RSS could be challenged as going beyond the proper scope of the RSS. 
 We should always consider two aspects: the relationship of the subsection to the whole of clause 1 and the interlocking between them; and the relationship between what the Secretary of State expresses as policy and how it figures in the RSS within the context of the new PPG11. I would fully understand the points raised by hon. Gentlemen if we were to pull out one sentence, but in this elaborate parliamentary ''Call My Bluff'' word game, we must always look more widely at the interlocking mechanisms. 
 The words are included to make it clear that the scope of policies in the RSS goes beyond the traditional narrow focus of land use. In that light, I invite the hon. Member for Cotswold not to persist with the amendment. The provision underpins the essence of clause 1 and the shift from regional planning guidance. From the whole array of policies approved by the Secretary of State, it is important to allow regions to determine in the broadest possible way what should be in the RSS. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I give the Minister some marks for trying, but he has not really answered the questions posed by my amendment and the interventions of the hon. Member for Ludlow. However much we might like to do so, we are not trying to narrow the clause or constrain what the Secretary of State can do. The amendment relates solely to the term ''(however expressed)''.
 The clause is sloppily drafted. If the Secretary of State is going to issue policies, they should be clear, on the record and in writing so that they can be produced if there is any subsequent query or court case. It is not clear, despite the intervention of the hon. Member for Ludlow, whether a key speech or media statement or anything else made by the Secretary of State would count as ''however expressed''. The Minister argued throughout that we were trying to narrow the clause, but if he wants it to be more open-ended, he needs only to add ''and other matters relating to these'' at the end. That would make crystal clear what the Secretary of State can or cannot do. The phrase ''however expressed'' simply does not make clear the mechanism by which the policies are to be delivered. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) made another pertinent point from a sedentary position. The subsection does not make it clear whether it is the RSS that may be expressed in any way, or the Secretary of State's policies. The Minister screws up his face, but we are talking about plain English. The Bill is not clear. The provision is an example of sloppy drafting, and on that basis and in view of the fact that the Minister has not adequately explained what the words mean and why they are included, I urge my hon. Friends to vote for the amendment, which it is very simple, as the only possible means of protest.

Sydney Chapman: I am grateful that the Minister has agreed to write to me about the precedent question that I raised.
 I hope that I am within order, but will the Minister accept that the subsection must be read in the context of the powers given to the Secretary of State in the Bill, particularly in clauses 2 and 9? They are pretty profound and specific. As someone who wants to get the legislation right and clear, I side with my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold in thinking that the words ''however expressed'' should be removed.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I shall give the Minister one more chance. If, instead of answering again in the way that he did, which I expected, he can intervene and clearly say that the policies concerned will be delivered in writing in the normal way, I will withdraw the amendment and not press it to a vote. Unless I can get those clear words, I shall press it.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No.3, in
clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out 'so much of'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No.4, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out 
 'as the Secretary of State prescribes'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am now moving amendments Nos. 3 and 4—

Peter Pike: Order. You move one amendment, and we debate the other one with it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Pike. I am now moving amendment No. 3. This amendment, too, probes bizarre drafting—we seem to be in that mode this afternoon. If I read out subsection (4), the Committee will see that it is drafted in a rather unclear and odd way. It reads:
''With effect from the appointed day the RSS for a region is so much of the regional planning guidance relating to the region as the Secretary of State prescribes.''
 What on earth does the phrase ''is so much of'' mean? I think—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that it means that the Secretary of State issues guidance but then directs how much of it applies to each region, but what an extraordinary way to proceed. Why not simply issue regional guidance for each region? The regions are so diverse that we are bound to have different regional guidance for each region. 
 I made the point this morning that legislation should be clear, simple, understandable and to the point. The Bill is ambiguous and unclear. It is quite 
 clear that the only person who can issue regional guidance is the Secretary of State. Clause 11(3) repeats clause 1(4) almost exactly—we are beginning to get repetition in the Bill. Repetition is not clear drafting. I ask the Minister to consider our amendments carefully and see whether they would add greater clarity to the Bill.

David Wilshire: I apologise for not being here at the start of the sitting, Mr. Pike. Whips have too many things to do at the same time, and I was detained Downstairs. I missed the opportunity to take part in the last debate, even though I wanted to make some contributions. Certain members of the Committee will be relieved that I was not here.
 While I fully understand that only one amendment can be moved at a time, I believe that the two amendments can usefully be read together, because they raise an interesting point. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold that a peculiar way of setting out to achieve something has been chosen, but those points have been made. I am more concerned about what the Government seek to achieve by using those peculiar words. 
 If I understand it correctly, clause 1 says that there shall be an RSS and it is the duty of the planning body, be it a region or whatever, to produce it. It does all the work, spends all the money, takes all the advice, consults and produces the RSS; then—lo and behold—we come to the subsection that says that, notwithstanding all that, the Secretary of State will arbitrarily decide which bits he likes and which bits he dislikes, and he will state what is to happen. There is no mention of appeals. What on earth is the point of bothering when the jackboots and the diktat will be used, whatever the wording used? 
 If we set out to draw up an RSS, that is what it should be. We touched this morning on whether we were dealing with devolution for administrative convenience—the great ayatollah in Whitehall pronounces and the definition of devolution is that someone else down the food chain is told to go and implement it—this confirms that we are. It does not matter what is done further down. Whatever the regional bodies produce, at the end of the day, the Secretary of State will decide whether to accept all of it, some of it, none of it, when and how much. If the Government really believe in devolution, that is an extraordinary way to proceed. Having set out the guidance and the framework that we heard about this morning, they should trust the devolved bodies to do what they have been asked to do. 
 If I were in local or regional government and was asked to do this job, only to be told when I had done it that the Government could not care less and would decide anyway, I would not want to bother—[Interruption.] The Minister may find it helpful to know that I would not be particularly enthusiastic. Nevertheless, I believe that this is serious matter. He has to give us a pretty robust defence of the words used in the clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold made the point that they are peculiar words to use to achieve something. He must not only satisfy 
 my hon. Friend about the use of words, he must satisfy the Committee on why he needs those powers, however he describes them.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As my hon. Friend has observed, the Bill gives the Secretary of States powers. Having got those powers it is totally within his gift—[Interruption.]

Peter Pike: Order. There is a Division in the House. I suspend the Committee for 15 minutes. If another Division is taken after this one, I will suspend for a further 15 minutes.
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Peter Pike: I call Mr. Clifton-Brown, who was finishing his intervention on Mr. Wilshire.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have enough of a job remembering where I am in my speech, let alone where I was before a suspension. In 10 years, this has never happened to me.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne is aware that the Bill gives huge powers to the Secretary of State. Labour Members ridiculed that comment, but most objective observers would agree with it. Given that that is so, is it not peculiar that the Secretary of State, who has complete power over what he puts into the regional guidance, should want further power to dictate how much of that regional guidance applies to each region? That seems totally bizarre. Does my hon. Friend agree?

David Wilshire: I had hoped that my hon. Friend would start not with ''As I was saying'', but by reminding me what I was saying. That would have been significantly more helpful. I know that I am getting old, but not being sure of where we were before we went downstairs is a sure sign of something going wrong with the brain. I shall save Labour Members from having to say that there is a lot wrong with my brain; I just mean that it is getting a bit more wrong as time goes by.
 My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The only thing he says that comes as a surprise to me is that the Secretary of State sets out by saying what goes into the guidance. Let us consider the example of an obliging regional authority that listens to the Secretary of State, thinks that the guidance is sensible and incorporates it. First, the Secretary of State says, ''That's what we've put into the guidance, so you'll put it in'', and the regional authority puts it in. Then he says, ''I don't like it, so take it out.'' That is an extraordinary state of affairs. My hon. Friend is right that this is a pretty dodgy Bill, and the more one looks at it, the more peculiar it is. 
 I think that the point I was making—no doubt you will remind me if I am out of order, Mr. Pike—is that it is not only the wording of the provision that is peculiar, as my hon. Friend said, but what the provision seeks to achieve. I believe that including such a provision would be wrong, but I accept that this is not the only Government who have done so. To say, 
 ''It doesn't matter what you do. At the end of the day, we'll either approve or we won't, and if we don't, we'll unilaterally strike out bits and tell you what you're going to do'' is not devolution or democracy, and a provision that does that should not be in the Bill.

Matthew Green: I share the Conservatives' concern about subsection (4). The deletions that amendments Nos. 3 and 4 would make might cause even more confusion, but I understand their intentions. I read subsection (4) a number of times to try to get to grips with what it is trying to achieve, and I look forward to the Minister explaining it lucidly and cogently.
 The problem with amendment No. 3 is that leaving out ''so much of'' would—I think—mean that the RSS was the only guidance that a Secretary of State could prescribe. Clearly, the Secretary of State could prescribe other guidance. Overall, the sentence is somewhat confusing. I am sure that the Minister will come forward with a good reason why subsection (4) is included and will say what it is supposed to achieve in the long run. However, I am concerned about the meaning being so unclear. Again, there is an example of some rather interesting wording, the meaning of which is not at all apparent, although perhaps I am just not feeling bright enough this afternoon. I look forward to the Minister explaining the sentence.

Tony McNulty: Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 would remove the Secretary of State's power to prescribe by regulations how much of the regional planning guidance for a region will become the regional spatial strategy on commencement of the Bill. There is nothing sinister about the provisions, and they have nothing to do with jackboots and diktat. They are about the transition from the regional planning guidance to the regional spatial strategy.
 The power is necessary. We have made it clear that our general policy is that the current regional planning guidance should become the regional spatial strategy. The power, however clumsily worded, is necessary to ensure that any RPG that becomes the RSS—and therefore part of the development plan—is appropriate to the region.

Paul Beresford: I understand that the Minister, in his role as Minister for London, has started some discussions with the local authorities about the Bill. I am sure that he will agree that that is a bit late, given that we are now in Committee. I also started admittedly late discussions on the Bill. Local authority planners find the Bill curiously worded, as though whoever drafted it was new to the job. The Minister has backed that impression with his phrase, ''however clumsily worded''. I hope that he listens to people outside the House because they feel that the way in which the Bill is phrased will in many instances be a goldmine for barristers and solicitors. That is why he should listen carefully to the Conservative party's attempt to clarify the Bill.

Tony McNulty: I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. I was not in any way attacking parliamentary counsel on this Bill or any other. If one were to form a club that said, ''Can we have an English legal system and an English legal lexicon that is actually English, rather than this legalese?'' I would
 heartily join it. However, we are yet to have that, so we have the Bill before us.
 The situation is almost the exact opposite of what the hon. Gentleman describes. The words are as they are to obviate legal challenge, capricious or otherwise, and to get over exactly what the Government want. The transition from the regional planning guidance to the regional spatial strategy must be appropriate to the region. Clearly, it should not be out of date. The next thing that people will ask is, ''Which ones are out of date? Which ones aren't out of date? Have you got a whole schedule for which will become out of the date by the time the Bill is secured?'' The answer to the latter question is no. We are not in a position to confirm now those RPGs that are inappropriate to make RSSs, since we do not know when commencement will occur and what the state of RPGs will be then. It is therefore important that we retain the ability to make that decision later. RPGs and the RSSs are the Secretary of State's policy and it is right that he should have the power. 
 None the less, I inform the Committee what I think will be the case. In London, as the hon. Member for Mole Valley intimated, the Mayor's sustainable development strategy is the RSS—the strategic planning document for the capital. Assuming that the SDS will have been published in final form in early 2004—it will go through its examination in public shortly—the RPG3 for London, RPG3a concerning strategic views in London, and RPG3b/9b for the River Thames will have been superseded by the spatial development strategy. London is not a region as defined in clause 11(1), and will not have an RSS. Instead, it will have the Mayor's spatial development strategy. 
 However, if one took the position for London and replicated it for another region with overlapping and over-arching RPGs, it would not be appropriate for all the RPGs that had any impact on London, including those that go far beyond London, such as that for the River Thames, to become the RSS for London all of a sudden. That is the thrust of the Bill. Such an outcome would be in nobody's interest. Subsection (4) is designed to address that. 
 Most of RPG3b/9b concerns the River Thames within London, though not all of it. To the extent that that provision extends outside of London, it will be superseded by the reviews of the RPG in the south-east and the east of England—both areas of the Thames that are not in London. RPG9a for the Thames gateway straddles London, the south-east and the east of England. In the context of the amendments, the RSS for the east of England would include elements of RPG9a that have nothing to do with the east of England, and that is also the case with regard to the south-east. 
 The Mayor has committed to a coherent sub-regional planning framework for east London to be co-ordinated with planning for the rest of the Thames gateway. That is fine, and as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear, the Thames gateway is one of our key growth areas. In view of that, it would be inappropriate and confusing to give RPG9a on the Thames gateway, with the overlapping 
 consequence for three regions, the status of an RSS. However, that would be the consequence of the amendments. 
 It is also important to note that none of the RPGs that we may not make RSSs was the subject of public examinations. They were designed at the regional level, without the public scrutiny that RSSs will have. 
 Even if the amendments were made, the Secretary of State would still be able to retain control by cancelling those parts of the RPG that he did not want to become RSSs immediately before commencement. Dealing with this by way of regulations is more transparent. I assure hon. Members that there are no jackboots or diktats; this is simply about preventing things from overlapping—it is as straightforward as that. 
 I thank the hon. Member for Cotswold for assuming that I would be cogent, and regardless of whether I have been, I hope that my explanation of this matter will lead him to withdraw the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On this occasion, I understand what the Minister is trying to say. However, I disagree with him. To issue specific RPGs to each region would be a far clearer mechanism than what is being proposed. Some of those RPGs might overlap in more than one region, but to say to regional planning bodies, ''Here is a block of RPGs; you must decide which of them apply to you and, if you get it wrong, I will withdraw or revoke the whole thing,'' is a bizarre way to operate.
 Although this matter is unclear, and I do not like the drafting, we need to make progress, as we must discuss many other parts of the Bill, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Peter Pike: Bearing in mind what Mr. Amess said this morning, I am willing to have a clause stand part debate, but I expect it to be focused and brief.
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I shall be brief, Mr. Pike.
 This is one of the Bill's most important clauses because the RSS is a new concept. We have been told that it is to be largely informed by the regional planning guidance but, as the Minister has made clear, that is not an examination in public. The Secretary of State will have huge power to direct how and when the RSSs will be introduced, and what their contexts and contents will be. That is a fact, regardless of whether we like it. 
 We seek greater clarity on that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne consistently made clear, we would like there to be proper devolution. If there is to be devolution, we should allow those who draw up the RSSs to have much greater freedom to decide the policy for their area. We would also like power to be devolved from the regional to the local level—indeed, from the local planning authority back to the parish and town councils. 
 I am also concerned that there is nothing in the Bill that states that one RSS must take into account what is in adjoining RSSs. For example, as the Minister has made clear, a huge development is going to take place in the Thames gateway that will affect three regions. 
 As we have heard, what happens to planning in Lechlade at the head of the Thames could affect what happens not only in the Middlesex counties but in the London planning area. This is not the last word on the matter, as several points in the clause need clarification. However, as the Secretary of State has huge powers to put things right, he will no doubt be able to do so. 
 In discussing the measure, we have an opportunity to get things right first time; the purpose of a Standing Committee is to scrutinise the Bill line by line. I leave the clause with some foreboding knowing that we have not got it right because the Government will not accept our amendments.

Sydney Chapman: I follow what my hon. Friend said and in this debate, on clause 1 stand part, we should be able to see how the Bill is beginning to take shape. We have debated, rather one-sidedly, five sets of amendments and I regret that the clarity of the Bill is becoming slightly blurred. I partially accept what the Minister said and I am grateful for the points that he made. However, I am not convinced. There are two key elements to the clause. The first is that in translating a planning system of structure plans into regional, spatial plans, we must have a smooth and clear passage. My principal worry is that in rushing for the RSS from the structure plans, we will denude the planning process of vital safeguards in respect of manpower and in terms of the legislation. It is essential to keep the county councils' expertise until there has been a full transition, whatever doubts we have about whether we are going in the right direction. I am not convinced that that will be the case.
 Secondly—I apologise for putting it in abstruse terms, but they are important—one of the reasons I want to stress the environmental factors is that the Bill's simple objective, in the Government's words is to 
''speed up the planning process''.
 Of course, it can be speeded up without necessarily doing all that is proposed in the Bill and I hope later to make constructive suggestions on how it can be done. Speeding up practically means speeding up the planning process but not at the expense of fairness, and I am surprised that the Government have not said that. To the business-minded person, speeding up the planning process to get development done more quickly is a worthy objective, but it should not be at the expense of environmental factors. That is the key point. 
 There will be an appointed day for the transition from the structure plans of existing local planning authorities to regional spatial strategies. It would be unfair for me to ask the Minister what day that will be, as it depends on the time that the Bill takes to get on to the statute book, if it does so. However, it would be useful if the Minister could give us an indication of when he expects, or hopes, the appointed day to be, as 
 that day is crucial in beginning the process of transition from local planning authority structure plans to regional spatial strategies. A smooth transition is vital to the success of the legislation.

David Wilshire: It seems to me that the more important an issue, the less is written about it. If anything is crucial to the concept of the Bill, it is the regional spatial strategy. I therefore assumed that it would be simple to find a definition of it. Look as I might, I am not getting on very well. Consider the explanatory notes. I know that they are not always relevant, but in this instance they are. We read that
''Clause 1 provides for a regional spatial strategy (RSS) in every region other than London. The RSS must set out the Secretary of State's policies (however expressed)''—
 we have been round that course— 
''in relation to the development and use of land in the region. These policies must be concerned with the use and development of land, but they need not be directly related to the grant or refusal of planning permission. They could include, for example, congestion charging policies.''
 This is a proposal for something new, arising out of a debate that has been going on for a long time—we seemed to have it ad nauseam when I chaired a planning committee, and that was 20 years ago. We now have a regional proposal on the basis that the county structure gives too small an area. If the driving force is that counties are too small and something larger is necessary, I expect the Government to offer an explanation about the regions that they have chosen. Unless they do, we are forced to conclude that changes are being made with regard to planning purely in order to fit in with another policy—administrative regions—and that, far from trying to improve the system because counties are too small, we are forcing the planning process in order to give regions something to do. 
 If I understand the Minister correctly—we have no definition of what the Government mean by regions—he is talking about an administrative region spatial strategy; a strategy that is being drawn up to reflect the boundaries that the Government have decided to foist upon England. I am not familiar with the north of England—not only do I need a passport to go north of Watford, I keep being told that I need a visa as well—so I shall not make any points about it. However, I do live in the so-called south-east, and have a constituency in the administrative region that the Government call the south-east, and I have to tell the Minister that that region makes no sense. If he is saying that there should be a regional spatial strategy that reflects his administrative definition of something called the south-east, then the Bill is barmy. Can he tell us why there has to be an over-arching policy that reflects the needs of Southampton, Portsmouth, Brighton, Spelthorne and elsewhere? I have yet to discover the commonality of those towns and areas, or the logic of a regional strategy that links them. They are not linked, cannot be linked, and do not want to be linked. 
 If we are to say that the clause provides for a regional spatial strategy, we must be clear what we mean by a region and what we are doing. These are not natural regions and this is not land use planning; it 
 is social engineering. It is saying that, somehow, we shall have a spatial strategy that will create from the artificial something that looks like a region. My constituents want nothing to do with that. They want the interests of their land, their community and their environment to be dealt with as seems appropriate to the natural sense of community in the Heathrow area. What does the Minister mean by ''region''? What makes sense to him in introducing a provision saying that there will be a regional spatial strategy based on a region called the south-east? I am blowed if I can see the logic of that, or why there should be an overall strategy for the artificial administrative region that he calls the south-east of England. It makes no sense. 
 The Minister needs to be absolutely clear about what he is doing. This morning, I was at pains to explain that when it comes to land use and environmental issues, the area that one has to consider varies. If one is discussing drainage and flooding, one must consider the area of the river basin. That river basin cannot be made to fit the south-east of England. A regional strategy vis-à-vis the Thames has to be based upon the Thames valley river basin, which lies across many different areas, including London. Soil types refuse to conform. The question of a regional strategy for agriculture depends on soil. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us his definition of ''regional''. I suspect that the definition will be self-evident: the artificial regions into which he wants to carve England up to make it easier for Brussels to throw its weight about. 
 I wonder why we are offered no definition of ''spatial''. Someone must have chosen the word. The nearest I can come to understanding what the Government are up to is in the explanatory notes, which make reference to land use. Is the strategy one of land use? If it is, will the Minister explain why issues such as congestion charges are being dragged into questions of land use? If it does not concern land use, what does spatial mean? It can mean any manner of things and is a most peculiar word. It was probably included because it is different from the other words, and forms a nice set of initials. I even looked at what was in the Library on ''spatial'', and that was not too clear. The nearest we come at the moment is the explanatory notes, which state: 
''These policies must be concerned with the use and development of land, but they need not be directly related to the grant or refusal of planning permission.''
 It seems that we are extending the concept of town and country planning into something new. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley said, the lawyers are going to have a field day. It would be helpful if the lawyers, when they have that field day, had the Government's intentions set out in Hansard so that they at least have a starting point for clocking up their fees as they haggle endlessly over what the Government are trying to do. Before we make up our minds on clause stand part, we ought to be told what the clause really means. At the moment it can mean all things to all people. There are no definitions provided, and I should be grateful if the Minister 
 would explain what the Government mean by ''regional'' and ''spatial''.

Tony McNulty: The clause requires each region to have a regional and spatial strategy and sets out what the strategies will be for a region. What is a region? It is broadly as defined by the previous Conservative Government. The administrative boundaries were set and established by that Government.

David Wilshire: If the Minister cannot sleep one evening, he might care to read past issues of Hansard, in which I criticised that Government, just as I criticise him, on the daft concept of artificial regions.

Tony McNulty: I fully appreciate the rather loose notion of collective responsibility in the 1979 to 1997 Government. It does not seem that anyone—new Members of Parliament, old Members or those in the other place—will take responsibility for anything that they did in any way, shape or form. The hon. Gentleman asked what the source and root of regions was, and that is it. It was tweaked, as I fully admit, by clause 11(1) of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it is sufficient for local planning units in every part of the country—including London, although it is not covered in the Bill—to concentrate on small distinct units, without even considering what goes on beyond them, that is a backward step.

David Wilshire: I am not suggesting that for one moment. Had the Minister listened carefully, he would have heard me say that regions such as river basins will be much bigger than the administrative monstrosities that the Government are working on. The Thames river basin, for example, crosses several administrative regions. The point is not that small units are appropriate—although they are in some cases—but that some issues extend far beyond particular regions, so an artificial, one-size-fits-all approach is doomed to failure.

Tony McNulty: The core of our proposals for regional spatial strategies is the absolute antithesis of what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Our approach is not that one size fits all, but that each region should determine what is appropriate to its spatial strategy, and that will be rooted in the up-to-date parts of its regional planning guidance. Nowhere does the Bill say that the south-east must draw up its regional spatial strategy using exactly the same template—warts and all—as the north-east, the north-west or, indeed, London, although it is covered by other legislation. Our approach in is absolutely not that one size fits all.
 The hon. Gentleman says—this is strange, given that the issue has been a core element of our deliberations on the clause—that the Government should clarify whether the Bill is about shifting the planning system away from a narrow definition of land use. Well, excuse me, but I thought that that was I had been saying, in one way or another, since I first rose to speak this morning. Yes, the Bill is about precisely that—going beyond a narrow definition of land use, planning applications and other more specific aspects 
 of development control. The country has not stood still since the late 1940s. Time has moved on, and the complexities and interrelationships to which the hon. Gentleman and others have referred dictate that we operate on a regional and cross-regional basis. 
 To answer the question about the revision of the RSS in each area, let me say that the regional planning body will have to have full regard to the RSS in each adjoining area. Clearly, nothing in nature or the environment recognises distinct boundaries, but if we took that point to its logical conclusion, we would have one local planning authority for the entire country. Devolutionary considerations would dictate that local planning applications from Durham and Dorset were determined by someone in Birmingham, who would be equidistant from both. However, that will clearly not be the case. 
 The hon. Gentleman is right, but he suffers from a slight confusion about local development documents, the work that local planning authorities do on planning and development control, and the spatial strategy. Spatial is defined in statutes such as the Greater London Authority Act 1999, but core elements are also contained in the sustainable framework with which all our documents must comply and in the regional planning outline. That is precisely because we have moved far beyond the notion of simple land use and a narrow definition of town and country. That is not a political point.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister said that other regions must be considered in the revision of the spatial strategy, but we are talking about what happens when regions draw it up in the first place. Can he assure the Committee that they will have to take account of the strategies drawn up in adjoining regions?

Tony McNulty: I would have thought that that would be a key consideration when the Secretary of State determines whether an RSS is appropriate. However, we are in a transition from RPG to RSSs. We discussed the key elements of RPGs that it is appropriate for regions to consider in forming the basis of an RSS. It would be lovely and simple, as we said when debating the previous group of amendments, if every RPG could become the new RSS, but things are never that simple. More important, once that transition is over, is what people will have to do as regards the subsequent revision of RSSs.
 The hon. Member for Cotswold was right, which is why I bear no malice to anyone in the Room for spending so much time on clause 1. The debate is extremely important, and it will dictate the direction that we take subsequently. For the Opposition to see the bogeyman of the Secretary of State being given more and more power is wrong and inaccurate. The core administrative powers, together with the legal and statutory powers that the Secretary of State already has under the existing regional planning system, are no different. 
 The key difference—we make no apology for it—is that the administrative framework containing the current regional planning powers of the Secretary of 
 State will be put on a statutory footing. That reflects the importance of the RSS in terms of the overall development plan and material planning gains compared with the advisory, albeit important, nature of regional planning guidance. The notion that we are giving the Secretary of State huge new powers is not the case; but, again, I suspect that that issue that will not die at the end of the clause stand part debate.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister was speaking quickly. The problem with that is that words can sometimes escape. He used the words ''material planning gains''. I can see nothing in the Bill to do with planning gains or obligations—which there ought to be; it is one of the great lacunae of the Bill. As I understand it that is to be dealt with subsequently by circular. Will the Minister confirm that?

Tony McNulty: I can confirm the first point. Perhaps I should speak faster—the hon. Gentleman would then miss my words entirely. I said ''material planning gains'', but I meant to say ''material planning consideration''. Again, that is a legalese version—documents have to be considered, not just a particular point of view.
 The only thing wrong with what the hon. Gentleman said about planning obligations being dealt with by circular and guidance rather than in the Bill is that I would quibble with the word ''subsequently''. It should happen a lot earlier; I hope that the circular can start to be put out for consultation before the two Houses of Parliament have finished with the Bill and before it is given Royal Assent.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This is an extremely important point. No one knows how long the Bill will be before both Houses of Parliament. Will the Minister tell us a little more precisely when he expects the draft circular to be published and the consultation to begin?

Tony McNulty: If I were less than cautious—or even extremely optimistic—I would say that I shall do all that I can to ensure that the consultation process starts before the Bill leaves the House of Commons. Ministers are foolish if they rely on timetables determined by others, but we have made considerable progress. I said on Second Reading, and I told the Select Committee, that the planning obligation circular and the review of circular 6/98 on affordable housing—the two key elements for all that is done by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—would certainly be completed in the early part of this year. If that has changed, or if I have been unduly, foolishly, misguidedly or naively optimistic, I shall write to the Committee.
 The hon. Gentleman makes a good and important point. On Second Reading, I said that the Bill was part of a portfolio of planning reforms, and that people should not only consider the Bill but should look beyond it to what we are trying to do by circular and guidance, and by other routes. Regional spatial strategies are crucial to all that we are trying to do. It is important that we should debate the clause, but I think that we have probably spent enough time on it.

David Wilshire: I shall comment on a couple of points. The Minister quarrelled with my assertion that
 this is an exercise in one size fits all. He is fundamentally wrong, because that is exactly what it does. The artificial administrative region is the unit into which everything within it is forced. I used the example of the Thames river basin. It is much bigger than the artificial region, yet things have to be considered within those boundaries—the same boundaries are used to deal with agricultural, leisure, employment, transport and heritage considerations. One could go on and on, the system is one size fits all. Why in heaven's name should all those considerations conform to the same boundaries? That is what has bedevilled town and country planning and the structuring of local government during the past century—trying to use administrative boundaries to deal with matters that are geographical or spatial or related to land use.
 One example of something that goes beyond the concept of the south-east is the Thames river basin. I am not being pedantic or petty about the units of little district or parish councils. A smaller example is Heathrow airport, part of which is in my constituency. The local considerations are made by the borough councils and, at a maximum level, the county councils. The regional context of Heathrow airport has nothing to do with the boundaries of the south-east, and even if it did, the overarching considerations for an employment and transport issue such as Heathrow are national anyway. Trying both to resolve the problems of the Thames and flooding and to ensure the future prosperity of Heathrow airport and my constituents within the same boundaries of an artificial region is the best definition of a one-size-fits-all process that I have ever encountered. For the Minister to say that it is the exact opposite is a load of nonsense, which he must know. 
 The Minister's other statement that cannot pass without comment was that he was proud to admit that the exercise went far beyond land-use planning. That was my starting point this morning, and I make no apologies for bringing the Committee back to the concept. What are we trying to do with the Bill? I thought that we were dealing with the planning process because, after all, the Bill is called the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. If it is what the Minister says, it should surely be the ''Social Engineering Bill''. 
 If we are to go beyond land use, where should we stop? Do we consider economic issues? Everyone would say that economic issues are planning issues? Do we consider social issues? Should we try to develop a policy for social cohesion in the south-east? Is that what the Minister is up to? That goes far beyond land-use planning. Does he want a south-east culture driven out of the Bill? Is his policy of development somehow part of a co-ordinated attempt to go far beyond what I understand to be planning? The cat has been let out of the bag: the Bill is part of a project of trying to create a different society—presumably based on a model of which the Minister approves—yet we thought that we were supporting the reform of the town and country planning system. I find that sad. 
 Furthermore, I see the Minister's definitions of regions, whether that refers to the south-east or 
 elsewhere, as total nonsense. When the debate started under a previous Government, I thought that it would be helpful to work out in which region my constituency was. I found that difficult, so I took the county of Surrey, which administers some services in my constituency. I gave up looking at the number of regions in which Surrey finds itself after the figure exceeded 200. Surrey is split for the purposes of spatial, development and land-use issues, and other issues that the Minister might want to include. In culture, for example, Surrey is split between many dioceses and circuits in the Christian Church, let alone other religions.

Peter Pike: Order. I hate to interrupt, but the hon. Gentleman is widening the debate a little further than is appropriate. I hope that he will bring his remarks to a speedy conclusion.

David Wilshire: I was beginning to think that I was on thin ice. I will spare you the other 199 examples, Mr. Pike, but I used that one to demonstrate the dangers of the Minister's definition of regions as the artificial regional structure that is being imposed on us. Whatever example one uses, it is a one-size-fits-all exercise. My simple prediction is that, because of that, whatever the Government seek to achieve, whether it is social engineering or not, the exercise will fail—for which I am thankful.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I am sorry to seek clarification on timetabling matters at this point, but I had originally been informed that we were to spend the first three sittings on part 1 and the next three sittings on part 2. There seems to be a discrepancy between the programme motion and the selection list on whether consideration of clauses 12 and 13 is to be concluded by the end of the third sitting. It appears that although clauses 12 and 13 are in part 2, they must be considered by the end of the third sitting. Would you please confirm whether that is the case, Mr. Pike?

Peter Pike: Yes, they must be dealt with by 11.25 am, at which time the knife will fall. The selection list is wrong, whereas the programme motion as printed on the amendment paper is correct.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Pike. As a matter of tidiness and good order, I would have preferred each section of the Bill to be considered in different sittings. If we are to have knives, it seems a good general principle that we should not deal with a section of one part of the Bill during consideration of a different part of the Bill—it is untidy. However, as we cannot alter the terms of the programme motion, that is how it will have to be.
 In passing, I point out that clauses 12 and 13 are very important. They deal with the powers of county councils and what is to be included in the local development plan.

Peter Pike: Order. The hon. Gentleman is pushing me beyond my powers as Chairman. This morning, the Committee agreed the programme motion on the amendment paper, and I am bound by that procedure. If I as Chairman of this or any other Committee were to get an indication at any stage that a majority were in favour of a change to the programme motion and if I were to receive an indication from the Government that doing so was a realistic proposition, I would be prepared to suspend the sitting for a very short period to allow the Programming Sub-Committee to agree a new motion to put to the Committee. However, the proposition would have to be realistic.
 The hon. Gentleman understands the situation as well as I do. If the Whips at any stage were to withdraw and then approach the Chair, the Chair would be reasonable. However, the Chair is bound by the decisions of the Committee and, indeed, of the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. That is a very helpful ruling. I suggest that we see how far we get in this sitting and, if necessary, the matter may be dealt with through the usual channels.

David Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. Your ruling is helpful. However, it is clear that we will not come close to dealing with clauses 12 and 13 between now and whatever time we finish this evening. We do not need to go outside the Room and have a chat about that. If it is of any help to the Government or if there has been some misunderstanding, I should say that I would be willing to engage in any conversation with anyone about the matter. I understand that the hon. Member for Ludlow is particularly exercised about it. The situation could easily have arisen from a misunderstanding of the words on a piece of paper rather than from the deliberate actions of anyone.

Peter Pike: I hope that there is always reasonable liaison between the Whips. I shall be chairing Tuesday morning's as well as Tuesday afternoon's sitting and hope that we can make progress.
 Members have asked me what time we will finish. Despite the Standing Orders for the House, the Committee could, in theory, sit right through the night if members of the Committee so wished. I am in the hands of the Committee and will accept a motion to make progress if the Government Whip so moves one. I will deem it reasonable to break for a meal if we go beyond a certain hour. I do not expect that to happen, but I am telling the Committee because several Members have asked me about it. The Chairman is not the one who decides when the sitting adjourns. Some Members are confusing what has changed by Standing Order with what has changed in the House. I hope that that clarifies the matter.

David Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. Even if we were to do as you suggest—sit until the early hours of the morning—we would still not get as far as clauses 12 and 13. I do not know whether you wish to contemplate being here on Saturday and
 Sunday as Chairman, but I suspect that the other members of the Committee do not.

Peter Pike: I served on many Committees when I was a member of the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman was in government, and we used to go on until the early hours of the morning. I hope that we will be sensible and reasonable today. We come now to clause 2.

Sydney Chapman: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. My point of order is completely different from those just raised. I notice that you kindly selected my amendments Nos. 186, 188, 184 and 185 under clause 2. However, amendment No. 188 relates to clause 4, amendment No. 184 refers to clause 10 and amendment No. 185 relates to clause 11.

Peter Pike: That is quite usual. Amendments to subsequent clauses are taken with the lead amendment where they deemed to be relevant to it. If, at the end of the debate, the hon. Gentleman indicates at the appropriate stage that he wishes to press the amendment to a vote, I will take note and call a Division. The amendment would have to be moved formally at that stage, but it will be debated in this group.

Sydney Chapman: I am grateful.Clause 2 Regional planning bodies

Clause 2 - Regional planning bodies

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in
clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (3).

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 49, in
clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out subsections (3), (4) and (5).
 No. 5, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 14, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
 No. 50, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 17, at end insert— 
 '(7) The Secretary of State may only give a direction once he has consulted all the authorities specified in section 4(2) as well as the Regional Development Agencies, Regional Chambers, Government Offices and members of the public. All representations must be made public prior to such a delegation being made.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To refer to the points of order, we would have plenty of time to reach clauses 12 and 13 if we did not have the guillotine motion. Neither the Committee nor many outside organisations will appreciate our not reaching those clauses, especially since they relate to the transition of county councils. I want to register my protest that the Committee will not be doing its job if we cannot get to those clauses.
 The clause to which the amendments relate is very important, as it is the clause under which the Secretary of State must designate the regional body. That is part of the transition from the current system of local plans and county structure plans to regional planning. I made it clear that the Opposition do not agree with regional planning or regional assemblies. However, the Government propose them and we must see whether they can work. 
 In my opening speech, I also made it clear that we could end up with an awful mishmash of planning in this country if we are not careful. If referendums are held and we vote for regional assemblies, some areas may have designated regional assemblies, some areas may have designated regional chambers while others have regional development agencies or government offices. The Government will have to consider the matter very carefully, because according to which body is designated, there will be a different emphasis on how it carries out its work. Some bodies will have directly elected members, while others have indirectly elected members. In the case of government offices, there will be no elected members at all. 
 Under the clause, once the Secretary of State has designated one of these designated bodies, if we may call them that, he can give a direction to withdraw recognition of that body if he does not like it. It would be draconian to withdraw recognition of that body having designated it, particularly if it is a regionally elected assembly. The amendments' purpose is to probe the Minister on the circumstances under which he would withdraw recognition. 
 Amendment No. 49 would omit subsections (3), (4) and (5). There is some sloppy drafting in subsections (4) and (5). On careful examination, those subsections are tautological because the opening words of subsection (4)—''Subsection (5) applies''—refer to subsection (5) before we even know what subsection (4) says. What a way to draft a Bill. 
 Subsection (4) should have started, ''If the Secretary of State'' and gone on to say what subsection (4) will do. It would then make sense for subsection (5) to begin: 
''In such a case the Secretary of State may exercise such of the functions''.
 The drafting is poor. As such, not only must we probe when the Secretary of State may give a direction. Subsections (4) and (5) are so badly drafted that they should be withdrawn at least until they can be corrected. They add further confusion to the entire process. 
 The direction given may recognise the regional assembly or the chamber as the RPB. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that point. In the kind and helpful guidance that he gave the Committee this morning, it says that in every case in which there was no elected regional assembly: 
''although since the chamber is likely to be the RPB this seems unnecessary.''
 That indicates that if the direction given does not recognise the elected regional assembly as the RPB it recognises the chamber. If that is the case, I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify that this afternoon. It is an important point, and I wish to know whether we have chambers up and running in every region. [Interruption.] The Minister is scowling. I can probably find the reference for him when I finish speaking because I hope that I have underlined it. It is on page 3 in the paragraph that starts clause 5.3. If I have misunderstood the document or it is incorrect, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the point in his reply.

Matthew Green: I am inclined to agree with the reasoning behind the amendments. If the Government are to proceed with the Bill as drafted, it must include those subsections. They allow the Government to give the planning powers to an unelected body, from which the Government can take away those powers. I do not want the Government to give them to unelected bodies; I only want the Government to establish them when there is an elected regional assembly. However, if the Government are to do so, the Conservatives' amendment would prevent them from taking those planning powers away from a regional chamber, a regional development agency or, indeed, the Government office and giving them to the elected regional assembly, which might come along later. I could not support that, because the powers must be in the hands of elected people.
 The clause and the proposed amendments highlight the fact that the Government are seriously intending to set up RPBs that are not elected. They are going to establish them in the regions before the elected regional assemblies are in existence.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Law Society suggested the amendments? They are probing amendments. As he knows, an amendment is often tabled, with no expectation of acceptance, as a means of probing the Government's intentions.

Matthew Green: I accept that and I am glad that the amendments were tabled. It brings us to the Government's clear intention to hand powers to unelected bodies. Later on we shall have to reflect on powers moving up from county councils, but the direction in which they are moving is irrelevant: the key problem is the existence of unelected regional bodies with planning powers. Ultimately, we understand that the Government want elected regional assemblies in all regions, but debate continues about the current boundaries and regions likely to be successful. It seems unlikely that referendums would be won in regions such as the south-east, the south-west and perhaps the west midlands.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If I did not say so, I alluded to it—the power in subsection (3) will allow the Secretary of State to revoke recognition from a regional assembly as well.

Matthew Green: I agree entirely. The Government have wrapped themselves up in the problem. I understand why they need the power: if they have given it to an unelected body, they will subsequently need to take it away and give it to a elected body. However, if the provision remains law, a future Secretary of State could take the power away from an elected regional assembly if he did not like the colour of the politics in a certain region. That might not be the Government's intention—the Minister will, of course, say that it is not—but the problem remains that some decades hence, a Secretary of State could, by direction, take the power away from an elected regional assembly.
 The Minister must reflect on how to escape that conundrum. My suggestion is not to grant the powers until elected regional assemblies have been set up, but I realise that he will not accept that. Perhaps he will find some other way to avoid having that open-ended power in the long run.

David Wilshire: I am sorry not to have been present for the whole debate. I hope that I shall not go over ground that has already been covered.
 Two other issues are relevant to the group of amendments, but first I seek your guidance, Mr. Pike, about amendment No. 50, which stipulates that the Secretary of State can give a direction, only 
''once he has consulted all the authorities specified in section 4(2)''.
 Section 4(2) sets out a list of authorities from (a) to (d). Having thought about problems over lunch, I tabled some amendments designed to change that list. At the moment they are not even starred amendments, but by Tuesday they will be relevant. I presume that they will be taken when we reach clause 4. I could explain the significance of amendment No. 50 and become involved in debating which bodies should have to be consulted. However, as the list in clause 4 is used on several occasions, and, as long as I can still discuss whether the list is correct when we reach clause 4, I will not need to trouble the Committee this afternoon. That is why I seek your guidance, Mr. Pike.

Peter Pike: Order. If an amendment to change the list is tabled and selected under clause 4, it will be perfectly permissible to debate it then.

David Wilshire: That is helpful. With the assurance that we can debate the matter later on, I shall not detain the Committee on amendment No. 50.
 I shall speak to amendment No. 5. It is often held that the easiest sort of amendment to propose and talk about is one that changes the word ''may'' to ''must'', or vice versa, and I suspect that many such changes have been debated with tongue in cheek. On this occasion, however, such a change is important. We have debated whether it is right or proper that the Secretary of State should withdraw recognition or do other things. The Minister will comment on that. I will not repeat the arguments about why that is wrong—I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said. 
 Let us assume, for the purposes of discussion, that the Government resist the amendments and that they will not listen to good common sense or wisdom coming from the Opposition Benches. The Secretary of State may, under the Bill, give a direction to withdraw recognition of a body and he could go on to do this, that and the other. Subsection (5) states that 
''the Secretary of State may exercise such of the functions''.
 That is wrong—[Interruption.] Allow me to continue—this is an important issue. If such a structural arrangement is to be put in place, if that will be required to happen region by region, and if the Secretary of State is to be given the powers, it is inadequate to say that he may, if he feels like it, withdraw recognition of the responsible body. If it needs to be done, he must do it. The word ''must'' is, on this occasion, crucial.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I apologise for not having spotted amendments Nos. 5 and 50 in the group. Amendment No. 5 is essential, because chaos would ensue if the Secretary of State were to withdraw recognition of a body and not take on its functions. In such a case, there would be nothing in place whatsoever.

David Wilshire: I am trying to get the Minister to accept that point, because he argues that the Bill is necessary and that the new paraphernalia are essential, and he will have his way because he has the majority of Committee members on his side. I am simply trying to help him, although I do not know why. I am, on occasions, a generous soul and I am trying to show him a flaw in his argument and his procedures. He will get his Bill, but in it the Secretary of State will have discretion whether or not to bother. The Government machine seeks to control everyone and everything, so I am offering him a way to get the Secretary of State under control and require him to do what other bodies are being required to do.
 We are trying to be helpful. That may be novel to the Minister, but politicians everywhere are pragmatic on occasion. Here is an opportunity for him to win recognition and to excel in improving the Government's Bill by ensuring that they have in place the mechanism that they set out to achieve.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Member for Spelthorne will forgive me if I treat his kind offer with a degree of suspicion.
 It is not appropriate to describe the amendment as a mishmash, or badly-drafted. I concede that what the hon. Member for Cotswold said about there being a clear and absolute role for probing amendments is true. Whether such amendments change things at Committee stage or subsequently in the process, they are often the most useful part of our deliberations. I do not have a problem with probing amendments, unless they are pursued to a vote or probed to death and then dropped. 
 Amendments Nos. 102, 49, 5 and 50 would alter the arrangements for withdrawing recognition from RPBs. Amendment No. 5 would make it compulsory for the Secretary of State to exercise the RPB function when no RPB was recognised at the time. Amendment No. 102 would remove the Secretary of State's power to give a direction withdrawing recognition of a body as a regional planning body. Amendment No. 49 would remove that power along with the Secretary of State's power to exercise those functions of an RPB that he thinks appropriate if he has not recognised a body to act as the RPB, or if he withdraws recognition from an RPB and does not recognise another body in its place. Amendment No. 50 would require the Secretary of State to consult unitary, county and national park authorities, regional development agencies, regional chambers, Government offices and members of the public before giving a direction designating a body as a regional planning body. 
 It might help the Committee if I explain the thinking behind the clause. The Secretary of State is concerned to ensure that the bodies with responsibility for preparing revisions to draft RSS are appropriate 
 and representative of the range of interests in the region. In order to be designated as an RPB, certain criteria will have to be met. I shall return to the point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold about chambers shortly. The criteria currently envisaged, in line with the planning Green Paper, would be whether the RPB and the proposed steering group appointed to manage the preparation of the revised strategy are sufficiently representative; whether the RPB will consult a sufficiently broad range of regional stakeholders, including through focus groups or planning forums; whether the RPB will work sufficiently closely with all groups to ensure delivery of the strategy; and whether the RPB will be able to take a sufficiently strategic regional view, addressing difficult regional choices where necessary. PPG11 on regional planning already provides advice on most of the above and is to be further revised, as I said earlier. The Secretary of State will expect the RPB to demonstrate that it has had regard to that in applying for designation and can demonstrate that all four criteria are satisfied. 
 The provisions that amendments Nos. 102 and 49 would delete are there to deal with the possibility that a regional planning body ceases to meet the criteria, or, in some circumstances, that it fails to carry out its functions appropriately. The amendments would leave no means of maintaining the policy either on how representative an RPB should be or how inclusively it should carry out its work. That would not be acceptable. 
 The hon. Member for Ludlow made a point about future Secretaries of State taking power away from an elected regional assembly. A literal interpretation of the matter may—only may—be correct, but I should be astonished if by the time elected regional assemblies are up and running there were not a regions Bill of some description, which would be needed subsequent to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill and would, among other things, prescribe the provisions of the elected regional assembly in terms of the planning dimension, regional strategies and so on. It would not be appropriate to say that that is what will happen in future, nor would it be appropriate to consider where we are now in the context of what might happen in future. However, we shall return to the matter when we discuss the ongoing relationship between the regions and the local bodies.

Matthew Green: That is a literal interpretation of the position now and I accept that an appropriate Bill may be forthcoming. However, in case a minor point raised in this Committee has been forgotten by the time that Bill is introduced, might the Government be minded to consider changing the wording of this Bill on Report to make it clear that it is not intended that the Government should be able to withdraw the power when there is an elected regional assembly? I suggest that as a possibility.

Tony McNulty: Given our intended and declared policy in the Bill and elsewhere, our position is clear. The only circumstances in which that would not be duly modified would be if there were no subsequent regional assemblies Bill, in which case the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill would be redundant
 because there would be no subsequent regional, democratic structure to be put in place. They are consequential on each other.
 Amendment No. 50 would require the Secretary of State to consult certain local authorities and regional bodies before designating a regional planning body. I suspect that the amendment may result from a misunderstanding of how the process of designation will work. It will be for the regions to make proposals that meet the criteria for designation. It will be important for all the bodies mentioned in the amendment to be involved in discussions, but that should be done within a region and not by the Secretary of State, whose role is simply to assess compliance with the criteria and other guidance. Amendment No. 5 would make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to exercise those functions of a regional planning body that he thinks appropriate in the event that he has not recognised a body as the RPB for a region or he does not recognise any other body. 
 It is surprising that the hon. Member for Cotswold has proposed an amendment that would impose the very centralisation about which we heard so many complaints on Second Reading. Our position on regional spatial strategies is clear: while there is no directly elected regional assembly to take on the strategic planning role, it is right that the Secretary of State, who is directly accountable to Parliament, is ultimately responsible for issuing the regional spatial strategy. In that situation, we must achieve the right balance between that responsibility and securing and safeguarding regional input. I contend that the Bill strikes that balance.

Paul Beresford: I read amendment No. 50 as another probing amendment, which is the reverse of the Minister's argument. It is trying to elucidate what the Secretary of State will do if he acts under subsection (3), which is the key point. Will he just roll over in the morning, think that he does do not like the flavour of his toast and sign the direction, or will he openly and clearly discuss the matter with bodies before signing it?

Tony McNulty: I shall answer that point later.
 If the RPB does not meet or ceases to meet the main criteria laid down, there needs to be a mechanism whereby the Secretary of State, with the help of regional partners, can take forward work on revisions to the regional spatial strategy. The region involved will have to propose a body that is fit for purpose in the event of non-recognition. As soon as it does so, it can return to exercising the functions of a RPB. 
 The matter is not as clear cut or as black and white as was intimated during the debate on the amendment. The RPB will not simply be choked off and no longer recognised. The Secretary of State will take on some, but not all, of its functions, which he will clearly have to do in the interim. There will be close engagement with all regional partners to secure a new or revised RPB that meets the criteria and is fit for the purpose, and the new RPB will get on with the job as soon as 
 possible. The RPB will not starkly be choked off, and the Secretary of State will not rub his hands in glee and say, ''I am now the RPB for a particular region.'' 
 As soon as the region concerned proposes a recognised body that is fit for purpose, that body can exercise the functions of a RPB. Even if there is some delay before a region devises arrangements that satisfy the criteria, it may not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to exercise any of the functions of the RPB, and much will depend on the circumstances and the length of any delay. That is why a duty on the Secretary of State would be inappropriate. 
 I should also point out that if the purpose of the amendment were to leave the Secretary of State with no choice but to take on all the functions of the RPB, the amendment would not succeed. That is because he would be left with a duty only to carry out those functions that he thought appropriate, and not all the RPB's functions. In any event, if that is the amendment's purpose, there are some functions of an RPB that it would simply not be sensible for the Secretary of State to exercise, such as preparing a report on the implementation of the RSS. One has to legislate for what ones hopes would be the worst-case scenario, but the Bill is not about taking power back to the centre with glee. It is about trying to create RPBs that are fit for purpose and remain committed to the criteria. 
 As I have been doing all day, I assure the hon. Member for Cotswold that there is absolutely no prospect of the Secretary of State issuing revisions to the RSS without going through the necessary steps to create a sound document that takes account of the views of the community and regional and local partners, which backs up my remarks about balance. To do otherwise would directly contradict our policy, and the Bill does not allow it. Under clause 6, any person will still be able to make representations on the draft and the Secretary of State, in deciding whether to hold an examination in public, must have regard to the extent of the consultation on the draft. 
 The hon. Gentleman raised one other point about regional chambers during the course of our deliberations on the amendment. We made it clear in the White Paper that the intention is that the regional chamber should be the RPB, subject to the criteria outlined elsewhere in the Bill being met. To answer his specific point, there are relevant regional chambers in all but three RPB areas. I cannot read the stuff in front of me—it is all gobbledegook—but, in essence, it means that the three regions that currently do not have chambers will have them by spring. All eight regions will have chambers by then and they are the nascent and subsequent RPBs. I shall now read my briefing notes.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister needs time to read his notes. I am not sure that he was not reading his brief on the next clause about the revision of RSSs. I was becoming confused. Will he concentrate on the purport of our amendment? In what circumstances would the Secretary of State withdraw recognition of a regionally designated body?

Tony McNulty: I have made that clear. Recognition of a regionally designated body would be withdrawn if it was outwith or developed outside the four criteria set out in the planning Green Paper and was determined as not fit for purpose. It is as simple as that. Such matters are laid out clearly in the Green Paper. Such action would not be taken lightly or for a length of time. As for suspending RPBs or derecognising them for a length of time, there would have to be another sweep of powers in the Bill governing what the Secretary of State can or cannot do in the interim.
 Even if derecognition took place, work would be undertaken closely with regional partners to reach the stage at which an RPB could be formed to meet the criteria and to make clear its purpose so that it, rather than the Secretary of State, could do its job in the regions. Otherwise, the Secretary of State will explore why the RPB did not meet the criteria and will decide what changes could be made to ensure that it meets them. To return to the hon. Gentleman's specific question, three of the eight areas do not have chambers, but will do so by the spring—I have just remembered that I have already made that point.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Before the Minister concludes his remarks, will he answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley? What consultation will take place and with whom before the Secretary of State issues such a revocation under the clause?

Tony McNulty: Unless I am mistaken, the short answer is none. It is clearly up the Secretary of State to determine whether the criteria are met and whether the RPB continues to be fit for purpose. I am not sure in what circumstances the Secretary of State will write a letter to each regional stakeholder asking whether it still regards the RPB as meeting the full criteria and is it still fit for purpose, and to give him a bell if it is not, but perhaps he will do so every three months.
 Consultation, interaction and participation with all regional partners involved at the regional planning body level would happen only subsequent to derecognition to deal with the problems caused by the absence of fulfilment of the criteria or fitness for purpose, so that we can reach the stage at which the RPB is up and running, fit for purpose and can move on. There is nothing malign or sinister about that. Whether the RPB continues to be fit for purpose or meets the criteria will be subject to ongoing assessment and initial recognition. If subsequent worries emerge, they emerge.

Paul Beresford: The Minister is saying that if the Secretary of State suddenly decides that he does not like the way in which an authority is performing and that it is not fulfilling the requirements, he will consult after he has made such a decision, not before. There will be no discussion with the relevant bodies that are affected by the decision. To use an antipodean phrase, the Secretary of state will simply pull the plug and then start consulting.

Tony McNulty: Given the lateness of the hour and the fact that we have been at this subject all day, I shall not be pedantic and quibble about antipodean roots of
 ''pulling the plug'', although I suspect that it was in use here before the antipodeans got hold of it. What the hon. Gentleman suggests will not happen. It sounds as though the Secretary of State will act in a malign manner, as though if he got up in a bad mood, he would say, ''Who should I deregonise or have a go at today?''
 Clear criteria will be laid down. Everyone will be more than aware of those criteria. Everyone who is party to the feast will have been party to the whole recognition process and will know what goes into the recognition of a regional planning body. It will be clear to all concerned if the criteria specific to the regional planning powers and the role of an RSS are no longer being met and whether the RPB is fit for its purpose. The provision is not intended to be used maliciously or capriciously and it will not be used in that way. I ask the Committee to resist the amendment.

Paul Beresford: When giving the direction, will the reasons for withdrawal be given publicly?

Tony McNulty: In terms of absolute clarity and certainty in my mind, I do not know the answer, but when I find out I shall let the hon. Gentleman know. It may be that that will be explored in regulations. I hope that the answer to his question is yes, and if it is not, I shall certainly get back to him.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister is being generous, which is helpful to the Committee, and I congratulate him on that.
 The Minister said that he would not consult before a notice was issued for revocation. The nuclear option of withdrawal of recognition is a serious step and I should have thought that, in practice, any responsible Secretary of State would move heaven and earth to avoid a situation in which that was necessary. The maximum consultation, not only with the recognised regional body, but with Government offices, RDAs and other constituent tier authorities, would be highly desirable, if not necessary. Could the Minister respond to the scenario I described and my probing and explain how he sees the provision operating?

Tony McNulty: I will, but looking behind me rather than at the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that I have had a blinding flash of inspiration. I can now say without fear or favour that the answer to his question about whether the reasons for revocation would be published is yes.
 Unreasonable use of derecognition could be subject to judicial review. We will not derecognise arbitrarily or in a vacuum. There is bound to be discussion, but ultimately the decision will be for the Secretary of State. I cannot foresee a situation in which there will not, at least informally, be the to-ing and fro-ing that the hon. Member for Cotswold suggested. He was not right this morning, but he is right this afternoon: derecognition is a nuclear option. It is a sledgehammer that would not be used regularly, but I contend—I hope that the Committee agrees—that it needs to be in the Bill because we must foresee as many circumstances as possible. Whether that to-ing and fro-ing would be formal when derecognising or revoking recognition from such a significant public 
 body will be explored further before regulations and guidance are published, as will the reasons for it. None the less, that does not affect the notion that the option should be in the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have had a full discussion on this group of amendments. Again, I do not entirely agree with the Minister's explanation, particularly on amendment No. 5. If recognition is withdrawn from a regional planning body, the Secretary of State will have to take over some of its functions. The Government need to think more about that and, in particular, about amendment No. 5.
 We have probed the matter in depth and to enable us to make progress I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sydney Chapman: I beg to move amendment No. 186, in
clause 2, page 2, line 17, at end insert— 
 '(7) In marine areas, the Secretary of State shall exercise such of the functions of the RPB as he thinks appropriate'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No.188, in 
clause 4, page 3, line 6, at end insert— 
 '(e) Any competent marine authority'.
 Amendment No.184, in 
clause 10, page 6, line 24, at end insert— 
 '(j) defining regions within the marine area for the purposes of this part'.
 Amendment No.185, in 
clause 11, page 6, line 26, leave out from first 'region' to end of line 27 and insert— 
 '— 
 (a) is a region (except London) specified in Schedule 1 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (c.45); or 
 (b) any part of the marine area.'.

Sydney Chapman: Some members of the Committee may wonder where Chipping Barnet, which I have the privilege of representing, is. I announced earlier this week that I would not be seeking re-election—[Hon. Members: ''Shame!''] Many Members seem to think that Chipping Barnet nestles easily in the Cotswolds; in fact, it sits somewhat uncomfortably in north London. Some might ask why the Member for landlocked Chipping Barnet is moving amendments relating to marine areas. The answer is simple: the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, a prestigious and much-respected body, and in particular, its parliamentary officer, Sally Webber, got in touch with me and begat the four amendments that I have the privilege of moving. I shall do so as crisply as I can.
 The purpose of amendment No. 186 is to make the Secretary of State the regional planning body for marine areas. The amendment would require him to exercise the functions of a regional planning body ''as 
 he thinks appropriate''. Members will know that clause 2 allows for regional planning bodies to be defined by the Secretary of State and that clause 3 requires regional planning bodies to keep the regional spatial strategy under review and to monitor and report on its implementation. 
 There is currently no one body with planning responsibilities in the marine environment. In the last Session, I was fortunate enough to steer through a private Member's Bill that transferred responsibility for marine archaeology from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to English Heritage. However, a diverse group of institutions, which I will mention later, have responsibilities in relation to the marine environment. We do not propose to remove any powers from existing marine-competent authorities. However, the amendment would make the Secretary of State the RPB for marine areas and would require him to keep under review and monitor any RSS that he develops under clause 1. 
 Amendment No. 184 would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that define regions within the marine environment for the purposes of part 1, so that RSSs, under clause 1, may be developed. The regions for which RSSs are to be developed would include marine areas by virtue of the proposed amendment to clause 11. However, the amendment to clause 11 just allows for regions within marine areas; it does not specify the boundaries of the marine regions, how big they are, or where they are. 
 We should remember the arguments between the Scottish nationalists and—perhaps—the rest of Britain, in which people asked, ''Whose oil is it?'' Such answers depend on the line marking the boundary between regions and how its angle in relation to the coast is defined. It could be quite a thorny problem. Clause 10 provides the Secretary of State with a power to make regulations for certain purposes in relation to persons exercising functions under part 1. Amendment No. 184 would allow the Secretary of State to exercise that power to define marine regions as appropriate through regulations. When marine regions have been defined, RSSs for each marine region can be developed. 
 Amendment No. 185 refers to clause 11 and defines regions for the purposes of part 1 as including any area of the marine environment. For the purposes of part 1, clause 11 refers to schedule 1 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 for definitions of regions. For example—I am perhaps looking rather quizzically at the back of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne—the eastern region is defined as the counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, and the non-metropolitan districts of Luton, Peterborough, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock. Well, we have our views about that. Incidentally, if one asks northerners to describe the south-east, they instinctively say, ''London and the counties surrounding it.'' Of course, under the regional structure that we have developed, Greater London is not part of the south-east. The amendment would allow a region to include any part of a marine area, but would not define the marine regions. That is left to the proposed 
 amendment to clause 10, which would allow the marine regions to be defined by regulation. Marine areas would be defined through an amendment to clause 72. 
 Amendment No. 188 would allow the Secretary of State, as the regional planning body for marine areas by virtue of the amendment to clause 2, to make arrangements for other competent marine authorities to discharge his functions. That is crucial because clause 4 allows a regional planning body to seek the assistance of local authorities, as defined in clause 4(2), to carry out any of its functions. 
 The amendment to clause 2 would make the Secretary of State the regional planning body for marine areas. However, the authorities listed in clause 2(4) have few, if any, functions that are relevant to a marine environment. The amendment would increase the scope of the authorities of which assistance might be sought to include marine competent authorities. They would be defined in an amendment to clause 72, which is titled ''Interpretation'', and would include Government Departments and competent authorities such as English Nature, English Heritage, the Countryside Council for Wales, sea fisheries committees and harbour authorities.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I wonder whether I might help my hon. Friend and cite an example of the new port that is being developed on the boundaries of Southampton and the New Forest. That is a typical example of a situation in which two regions might be crossed. It would be helpful to have a designated marine area so that one knew the precise area in which the development was taking place.

Sydney Chapman: The Committee will be grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, as am I.
 My unusual eloquence is due to the fact that I have been speaking closely to a briefing by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I hope that the Minister, with his usual generosity, will be able to accept the amendments. I can take punishment but I do not want the RSPB's wrath to descend on the Minister. I hope that he will give a fair wind to the eminently sensible amendments.

Tony McNulty: I have the greatest respect for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; I am sure that we all have. If each political party represented in this Room could maintain and expand its membership as the RSPB has, the parties would be healthier than they are at present.
 I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman—he is a near neighbour; we have but Hendon between us—has concerns about the marine dimension of our national life. I know that because I was the private Member's Bill Whip in a previous incarnation when he steered his Bill on marine archaeology through the House, and I know that he had great interest in the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), which died a death in the place that has red carpets rather than green. I take the thrust of the amendments seriously. 
 At the risk of arousing the wrath of the RSPB, I contend that the amendments and related ones to be considered later are strictly unnecessary. I shall come later to further reasons. The Secretary of State or other Ministers already have responsibility for controlling the full range of offshore development activities, including oil and gas exploration and production, offshore electricity generation, any other offshore developments affecting structures on the sea bed, coastal protection and harbour management including navigational dredging, ports and harbour development, developments relating to navigation and defence and, shortly to be enacted, offshore marine mineral dredging. 
 In the exercise of those various responsibilities, the responsible Secretaries of State and Ministers must have regard to environmental matters, not least—no red rags, please—to conform with the requirements of European directives on environmental impact assessment and habitats. It would cut across those responsibilities to give the Secretary of State with responsibility for land use planning an overarching responsibility for environmental matters offshore, and it is impractical to expect that such work could be done properly without involving the regional planning bodies and individual local authorities. 
 The present range of offshore consenting regimes, except that for oil and gas, is being reviewed by an official group reporting to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Rooker. It is expected to report later this year. The review was announced last May at the launch of the marine stewardship report. I shall certainly find out more about the timetable, content and substance of that review, and when it is to report, and shall let the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet and, through him, the millions of RSPB members, know my findings. 
 The review is examining a range of complex and contentious issues, including the feasibility of transferring some or all of the consenting powers from Ministers to local government, which is relevant to the amendment. That would imply a connection with the new regional spatial planning system. That would raise some complex legal issues and major matters of local government finance for the authorities and regions concerned. Additional costs to regional bodies and local authorities in framing plans for marine environmental protection would have to be met from other environmental programmes. It is not yet clear whether creating a patchwork of regional and local authority controls over marine areas would be the best means of replacing present unified national control. As I said, I shall further inform the Committee on that subject of the review. Other options, perhaps involving the rationalisation of some or all of the existing national regimes, might be more effective. 
 Another initiative of which the amendments take no account is the current review in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of marine nature conservation, which is concerned directly with the issues that the amendments intend to address. It would be premature to anticipate the work in hand to improve the effectiveness of the management of the 
 marine environment by creating yet another set of statutory powers to cut across existing ones. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. If he does not, I ask the Committee to reject it, especially in the context of the review being undertaken by my right hon. and noble Friend and what is going on at DEFRA. If I have anything of substance to report on either process before deliberations in the Commons on the Bill conclude, I shall get back to him. I take the marine environment and the issues surrounding it very seriously.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister has mentioned various offshore activities that are increasing, such as gas and minerals extraction, and I would add wind farms. We should have a mechanism so that the regional planning bodies can have an input into such developments, which are likely to have a considerable economic and environmental impact on their areas. That is why the RSPB is so concerned about them. We must ensure that there are additional safeguards so that local people, through the RPBs, can have some say on those developments. Will the Minister write to the Committee on the sort of input that the RPBs could have on such developments?

Tony McNulty: I shall be more than happy to do that, but only if it does not pre-empt the outcome of Lord Rooker's review. As I have said, part of his focus when examining many of the consenting regimes is to see whether a multifaceted national system, with a focus on the marine environment as a whole, is the most appropriate and efficacious way forward, or whether breaking down some of those elements at regional or sub-regional level is more appropriate.
 Initially, let us say that I shall find out more details of the review, its substance and its timetable and 
 return to the Committee with them. It will then be for Committee members to decide how they want to take that information forward, in conjunction with the RSPB or otherwise. That would be appropriate. These are serious matters; we can perhaps explore how our actions in Committee best dovetail with the review and DEFRA's work on marine conservation by the time that the House has finished discussing the Bill.

Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for the tone and tenor of the Minister's reply. I appreciate it very much, but should like to make two quick points.
 First, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold is on to something with his point about the boundaries of the marine areas, mentioning the Southampton and New Forest area. That could be crucial. Secondly, I understand that the powers of the local authority or, in this case, regional planning authority go only—I can never remember exactly the right phrase—to the mean water level of low or high tide. I think that the Crown owns the beaches and shores. Perhaps that is a technical problem, but it is a legal one. There may be slightly more impetus behind the amendments that the RSPB have requested because of those legal factors. 
 I am grateful to the Minister for promising to look into the matter and keep the Committee informed. With the safeguard of discussion on Report still to come, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Dan Norris.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 14 January at five minutes to Nine o'clock.